If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

GRH, All you have to do is say, no I don't think the Flintstones theory of life on earth is correct to rebut Kstat. But, maybe you do?

Just hurry up and say how the earth is 6,000 years old so I can quote the part where you said "I believe Darwin was an ignorant product of an ignorant time". and then we can discuss bronze age mythology compared to modern science.

Anyway, this is all just me guessing at your ideas... because you won't tell us! However, going from what I found on www.arrivalofthefittest.com which you so arrogantly chided us for not understanding, I think I can see pretty clearly where you are coming from.

I'd like to know what we're "indoctrinating children" in....and at the same time everyone in this thread already knows what the answer will be.

Again, I improperly thought this would be a quality discussion about the origins of life on earth...but no, it seems even in 2013 we can't escape creationism. I swear to god there are still some people that still think the earth is the center of the universe, too.

We're hearing how Darwin was obviously wrong, but we're not hearing about what theory is obviously correct. Why? Because religion is off-limits here, and he can't say what he wants to say without throwing science into the trashcan and moving on to religious doctrine. That tells you all you need to know about this.

No creationist will ever address Dinosaurs. They just pretend they didn't hear the question, because it's quite literally impossible to square 230,000,000 year old 100-foot reptiles existing on a 6,000 year old planet alongside modern humans armed with only sticks and stones without fully embracing the crazy.

Since this thread was obviously started as a passive-aggressive pro-creationism thread, I'm going to go ahead and address it myself, because I'm getting tired of us trying to see how many pages we can go back and forth insulting Darwinism without actually pointing out why we're doing it. If this thread gets locked, so be it, because religion was a pretty obvious influence in creating this thread from the start.

Creationism stems from certain Christians' need to believe that "their" religion is the correct one, and if the history of the earth was correctly depicted in the bible, then they must be right, and everyone else must be wrong.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

No creationist will ever address Dinosaurs. They just pretend they didn't hear the question, because it's quite literally impossible to square 230,000,000 year old 100-foot reptiles existing on a 6,000 year old planet alongside modern humans armed with only sticks and stones without fully embracing the crazy.

You should stick to giving your opinion, instead trying to give the opinions of millions of people you've never met. I believe in Creationism, and I believe in dinosaurs, so obviously you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

You should stick to giving your opinion, instead trying to give the opinions of millions of people you've never met. I believe in Creationism, and I believe in dinosaurs, so obviously you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

Go for it. By all means, let's hear it. Stop telling me that I'm speaking for you and start speaking for yourself.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I don't take the Bible literally in that it took 6 days to create the entire world. What is a day to God? I don't know, and you're even more full of it if you're going to argue that you do.

One day might be equal to millions of years. Creating anmials (dinosaurs) in one day, for God, and then man in another, could easily have millions of years between the two.

I have never heard a Creationist deny the existance of Dinosaurs. Admittedly, I don't go around talking about the topic a whole lot, so I'm sure there are, but trying to peg millions upon millions of people into one square box, that you set up is probably the most narassistic thing said in this thread yet.

And besides, Creationism could be correct, but our understanding of the Creator completely wrong. This factual presentenation of either argument is silly, and trying to mock those that disagree with you is even sillier.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I don't take the Bible literally in that it took 6 days to create the entire world. What is a day to God? I don't know, and you're even more full of it if you're going to argue that you do.

One day might be equal to millions of years. Creating anmials (dinosaurs) in one day, for God, and then man in another, could easily have millions of years between the two.

I have never heard a Creationist deny the existance of Dinosaurs. Admittedly, I don't go around talking about the topic a whole lot, so I'm sure there are, but trying to peg millions upon millions of people into one square box, that you set up is probably the most narassistic thing said in this thread yet.

And besides, Creationism could be correct, but our understanding of the Creator completely wrong. This factual presentenation of either argument is silly, and trying to mock those that disagree with you is even sillier.

You're not arguing creationism. You're arguing for the existence of God. Darwinism and God are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to expand the term "creationism" to "at some point in time, somewhere, god created the universe," then that isn't what's being discussed here. I stated myself that it is quite literally impossible to trace existence of time itself back to the very beginning without running into the existence of a god. But that isn't what is being talked about (without being talked about) here.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Personally, I don't buy the allegation that the 7 days stuff could mean some kind of 'special God days' versus just plain old 24 hour days. The only reason I can see for anyone to assume that spin is to make what would otherwise be a square peg fit in a round hole, in my opinion. Not that you can't believe that if you want, but I find it dubious and contrived myself.

I feel like some people act like they can't believe in God without attaching a popular religion to God at the same time. Perhaps God is real but the religions built around him are mistaken. They don't have to go hand in hand.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

Personally, I don't buy the allegation that the 7 days stuff could mean some kind of 'special God days' versus just plain old 24 hour days. The only reason I can see for anyone to assume that spin is to make what would otherwise be a square peg fit in a round hole, in my opinion. Not that you can't believe that if you want, but I find it dubious and contrived myself.

I feel like some people act like they can't believe in God without attaching a popular religion to God at the same time. Perhaps God is real but the religions built around him are mistaken. They don't have to go hand in hand.

When did the 24 hours makes a day system come into effect?

I honestly never thought of that before, but I could see where translations get changed years after years (or hundreds or thousands, etc). Just think of how much the message in the telephone game gets changed, and that is usually a group/class of 15-20 people and 45 seconds

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

No, that's not what I've "expanded" it too. Creationism is the belief that the universe was created by a superior being, God. I believe God created the world. I believe God created the dinosaurs.

This isn't that hard to understand.

....and your belief on how and when god "created" all of the life on earth is....

You're trying really hard to get offended without reading through this topic and seeing what is actually on the table. If you're going to stick to the broadest, most generic definition of the word possible, then you have been getting upset over the English language, not philosophy.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

...then you've officially expanded "creationism" to "anything anyone believes ever." You've officially run as far away from this topic as possible without putting your toes in the water.

The irony here is that it's Darwinists who are overeager to label anything which challenges their stealth religion "science" as being creationism. As I stated in a prior post, according to these people there are but two possible positions: Abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution, or the dreaded CREATIONISM. Let's all give Kstat and Thingfish a round of applause for bringing that willfully dishonest myth to this thread. Way to go, fellas!

When terms like "indoctrination of our children" and "arrival of the fittest" come into play, you've narrowed the definition significantly.

Schoolchildren have been indoctrinated into Darwinian evolution for at least a generation now, and the question of the arrival of the fittest is not only a very valid question, it's the foundation of the entire debate, starting with the arrival of the very first lifeform(s).

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

The only purpose of my post was to refute your ignorant belief that anyone who believes in Creationism denies the past existence of dinosaurs. Obviously that position isn't true.

...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

I don't take issue with anyone's religious beliefs. People are free to believe that the Earth is 6,000 years old if they want to. Or that God created the universe. You can believe whatever you want to, as long it doesn't affect others negatively.

What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.

Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.

...or you could educate yourself on the subject, and learn the distinction between old Earth creationism, who believe in a several-billion-year-old Earth, and young Earth creationism, who believe in a (I believe) 6,000-10,000-year-old Earth.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

...or you could educate yourself on the subject, and learn the distinction between old Earth creationism, who believe in a several-billion-year-old Earth, and young Earth creationism, who believe in a (I believe) 6,000-10,000-year-old Earth.

This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

...except I never took that specific position, as it pertains to your definition of the word. You just objected to my use of the word "creationism" as you obviously take a far more liberal approach to it than I do.

I take the accepted dictionary definition of the word. Sorry, I figured we'd use those and not our narrow personal view points.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

This is where I get to quote you! I knew you were a young earth creationist! Totally called that one out LOL. So let's look at your quote and think about how far the human race has come from the Bronze Age to Charles Darwin. Now, let's let this quote sink in a while.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

What I DO take issue with is people trying to shoehorn their religious beliefs into the science classroom. Organizations with names like the "Discovery Institute" have been trying to dress up the wolf in as much sheep's clothing as they can, but the wolf is still a wolf and people can see it. Organizations like the Discovery Institute, which use underhanded tactics to try to get religion into science textbooks, are the reason that scientists have gotten so defensive.

The Discovery Institute is a great organization with top-notch thinkers with elite educations. Their Evolution News & Views blog is a daily read for me.

Unfortunately, the fact that they challenge Darwinian evolution makes them public enemy #1 to a certain class of people, which in turn has lead to a massive smear campaign against them. It's shameful and dishonest, but shameful and dishonest is the name of the game when it comes to protecting outdated ideas like Darwinian evolution.

Disagree with evolutionary theory all you want, but it was developed using evidence, observation, scientific testing and the scientific method. Creationism was not. Evolutionary theory is not perfect, it hasn't delivered all of the answers yet (many will never be able to answered definitively), but it never claims to. Scientists continuously search for new answers and expound on old ones. That's the great thing about science. It's never satistfied. It continues to look to expand knowledge. That's why evolution belongs in the classroom and creationism (or Intelligent Design or whatever name people try to use to hide their true intentions) does not.

There are many disputable claims there.

First of all, what evolutionary theory are you referring to? Notice how I'm always careful to specify not just evolution, but Darwinian evolution? That's not an accident. My primary objection isn't to the common descent, but to the laughable random mutation/natural selection nonsense. If that's the variation of evolution you're referring to, then I'll have to strongly disagree with your claim that it was developed using observation, evidence, and proper scientific methodology.

As for intelligent design, as an I.D. proponent myself, I'll have to object to your claim that it's repackaged creationism. This is a myth that was started in order to try to refute I.D. without having to actually address it's argument. It's what we call a straw man argument; an intentional misrepresentation of an argument in order to create the illusion that you've actually refuted the real argument.

Aww, well hell. I'm sure I can use all these quotes again soon... Really, anything you say after bashing one of the greatest thinkers in the last 300 years, constantly referring to him as ignorant, will no doubt be ridiculed.

Re: The Origin of Life/Evolution?

For the record, I'm non-religious. I grew up in a weak-to-moderately religious, non-church-attending household, and religion never took a hold on me. If your arguments against anything I say in any way are formulated around the idea of me being a Christian, believing the Earth is 6,000-10,000-years-old, or "sneaking creationism into the classroom," then you've failed right out of the gate.

What I am is a neo-teleologist. Teleology, for those unaware, is the belief that there is design and a sense of direction in nature, including biology. It predates Christianity by several centuries, dating back to no later than the early Greek philosophers. My belief is that neo-teleology is not merely a philosophy, but a valid scientific discipline, one with strong supporting evidence.

On a neat little sidenote, Thomas Jefferson, the father of the separation of Church and state, was a noted deistic teleologist, who explicitly rejected teleology being a religious concept, but one based on reason and evidence.